11 F. 744 -

11 F1d 744

when rendered will enforce or recognize any lien is a qll Rtion per. taining to the form of judgment, and cannot, in this statt: of the cause, be dealt with. Exception overruled.

THE TIGER LILY.

(District OlJUrt, E. D. New York.

ADMIRAJ,Ty-NEGLIGENCE-DAMAGES.

May 11, 1882.)

Where a canal-boat moored at a dock was sunk by the swell caused by a passing steamer going at a high rate of speed, held, that the steamer is liable in damages for the loss.

Oscar Frisbie, for libellant.

D. J. This action is brought to recover of the steamboat Tiger Lily for injury done to the canal·boat Mountain City by the suction of the Tiger Lily in passing. The accident occurred just abc>ve the High bridge in the Harlem river. The Tiger Lily was at the time upon a regular trip up the river, and abc>ut to land at a dock some 200 feet above the bridge, on the Westchester side of the river. The canal·boat, laden with coal, was moored above the bridge, on the New York side of the river, but below the steam-boat's landing, with her stern just clear of the bridge. The course of the Tiger Lily was through the middle arch of the bridge, past the place where the canalboat lay, and to her dock just beyond, the tide then being low. The canal·boat lay in water some nine feet deep. She was made fast by nine lines running in various directions, and, so far as I am able to discover, all necessary precautions were taken to enable her to resist any reasonable force of the water created by any passing steam-boat. WhEm the Tiger Lily passed, on the occasion in question, she created a suction so strong that the fastenings of the canal-boat were parted, her deck and combings being broken by the strain of the hawsers, and she thrown over upon the rocks about the abutment of the bridge and seriously injured. The force which broke the canal-boat adrift was the snction of the water caused by the action of the wheels of th. Tiger Lily, she being a side-wheel boat. No fault is to be found in the Tiger Lily for passing through the center arch of the bridge-'-no other course was open to her; but I must conclude, from all the cir· cumstances, that she was in fault for keeping up too great speed in passing the canal-boat.BENEDICT,

HAGAN V. BROCKIE.

745

The position of the canal-boat was known; while lying in the saDie place the Tiger Lily had passed her on the same day without doing any damage. The narrowness of the channel made it incumbent on the Tiger Lily, at low ebb-tide, to use all possible precaution to avoid. doing damage to a vessel moored where the canal-boat was. The pilot of the Tiger Lily, who is the only witness called ill her behalf, and who is contradicted by the libellant, says that his boatwasillowed down as much as possible before she reached the bridge. But lie also says that her wheels are small, and when going at half speed she cteates no swell. On this occasion she did create a sitCtion strong enough to part six. of the canal-boat's lines,some three and some Mut inch lines, and to break up the combings and start tHede'ck. Tnes13 facts compeltheinferenM that the wheels of the this' occa'sion kept mo'Ving with' more powert4'an wa's necessarY' to enable her to pass tile bridge and reach her lartdfng.' Because of fault,· I hold het responsible for the damage to the lipella:nt'sb'Oat. ' ...... , . r

HAGAN

v. BROOKI:1Il and another.-

(District Uourt, E. D. PennsylfJania. February 17,1882.)1. OF BARGE- OWNER OF WHARF-INJURY FROM OBSTRUCTION IN DOCK-LIABILITY.

Neither the charterer of a barge, nor the owner or tenant of a dock into which the charterer orders her, is liable for injury to the barge causen by the previous displacement of piles in dredging, if they had no knowledge or notice of the displacement, or any reason to anticipate It.
2. SAME-NEWLy-DREDGED DOCKS. The evidence in this case held not to sustain libellant's allegation that newly-

dredged docks were usually considerl'ld unsafe for barg-es, on account of the tendency of the dredging-machine to pull up or uncover old logs 01' spiles.

In Admiralty. Libel by Peter Hagan, owner of thE' barge William, against William Brockie and the American Steam-ship Company, to recover damages for the sinking of the barge. The testimony disclosed the following facts: The barge was chartered by William Broe-kie, who was shipping grain to Europe. It was to be used for the purpose of receiving grain from small vessels and unloading it into ocean steamers of the American Steam-ship Company. The master was ordered
.Reported by Frank P. Prichard, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar..